Sometimes the ends don’t justify the means

The US patent and trademark office announced last Wednesday that it was cancelling the Washington Redskins Football team’s protection, but this decision doesn’t only concern the National Football League. Let me be perfectly clear – I recognize that their team name contains an ugly slur. I am in no way supporting the team’s decision to continue using it. I would not use the term to discuss anything other than the football team, but that is my choice. I can also choose not to buy tickets, merchandise, etc from people who say, do, or otherwise represent things I disagree with. There is a particular fast food restaurant chain I have not visited in twenty-six years for this reason.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote the line, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it as a way of summarizing Voltaire’s beliefs on free speech.

The team has a right to call themselves what ever they want, use whatever logo they want. They are the ones expected to live or die by the consequences of that decision. Locals or visitors do not have to fill in the seats, just because there is a stadium. Networks would have just as much right to elect not to continue television contracts, or accept ad dollars.

As a patent holder as well as a copyright holder, I have always looked towards the US patent and trademark office as the agency that will protect my intellectual property from piracy. The public manner in which this announcement was made sends a message. Even though it was once protected, anyone will now be able to use the team’s logo in any manner of which they deem fit. Someone not affiliated with the organization could run a campaign and the team would no longer have a legal defense. It’s not piracy, it’s privateering.

While I appreciate the end result they are trying to achieve, I question the means. Their decision sets a very troubling precedent. In 2011, a new edition of Huckleberry Finn was released in which a certain other racial slur was edited out as if it had never been written. What if they hadn’t? What if the copyright was dropped altogether? Would there now be a flood of knock offs diluting the story to the point no one knew for sure whether or not they had Mark Twain’s original? Or would the story be pulled off the shelves altogether in the face of loss of profit for the publisher? In today’s world of e-books and other media you don’t need a fire to burn a book, just a few key strokes.

The recent commercials and satirical spotlights, attempting to change company’s position through a combination of education and shame, are by far a much more palatable means to the same end. I was lucky enough to attend a lunch with the Mayor of my hometown. We were free to ask whatever question we wanted. One of the first questions one of the other guests act was what was the city going to do to stop the late night comedians skewing of decisions the voters had made. I know then for a fact that satire and increased educational outreach have an impact. Those are the efforts we should be supporting. Not this tactic.

I enjoy writing on topics such as leadership and entrepreneurship. To be successful at either a person must be willing to take risks, roll up their sleeves, and do what has to be done to get their message out. I could easily play it safe. I could keep my opinion on this matter to myself and continue to write happy motivational pieces. I could keep my head down and tell myself there is nothing to be concerned about here. I like to think I am a good person. My work is more at risk by touching on this topic than from not, but bad things happen when good people say nothing.

4 thoughts on “Sometimes the ends don’t justify the means

  1. It’s funny–I find myself in an ideological loop. I disagree with your position; I think whoever at the patent office proposed cancelling the team’s protection was an example of a good person refusing to say nothing. And yet, I would never object to your stating your position, nor would I want someone else to silence you or it. So do I agree with you or disagree with you? Maybe even I’m not sure, but I want to tease the loop out a bit.

    While I do feel censorship is extremely problematic, I wouldn’t say the patent office’s actions are a form of censorship. Free speech that is harmful to another group isn’t entirely protected under the law, either; presenting a clear and present danger is exempt from protection. And don’t derogatory slurs create danger and damage? Don’t they open some groups of people up to viewing other groups of people as “lesser”? Don’t they harm the group defined in that way? I think there is a difference between denying a protection and censoring a position, but you’ve made me see the line is finer than I might have otherwise wanted to admit.

    Thanks for making me think (as you always do), Allie.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I always enjoy your perspective as well, and let me repeat I under no circumstances condone or agree with the organizations continued use of the word, but I just didn’t view this particular type of free speech in the same vein as shouting fire in a crowded theater and someone in that same theater shouting hate speech. I guess, in this example, the clear and present danger is defined as which outcome more likely in the circumstances of the theater based on that evening’s crowd: a stampede or a fight among individuals with the potential to escalate into something worse. I will concede my way of thinking could be more telling of my lack of experience / understanding of the Native American culture or the challenges they face. In any case, you bring up some excellent points.

      I guess I take issue with the arbitrary denial of protections that were previously in place. Kim Davis is an example of a government employee who also decided to deny individuals their protections under the law because she disagreed they deserved those protections. I would have much rather the issue gone to court and ruled that there was evidence to support the argument of clear and present danger rather than have an agency that should only be concerned about whether or not an image or text violates prior art step in.

      It’s definitely a fine line.

      Of course, the best thing would have been for the team to have been hit in the pocket book years ago over their continued use of the name and logo and done the decent thing on their own, but I suspect that is a little much to hope for.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. If I wasn’t clear, I do so very much appreciate and welcome your arguments. I love that you challenged me on this as they did cause me to re-evaluate my position, and more importantly, think, before replying which is always a good thing.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.